Talk:Kiss of Judas

Missing reference

I'm missing the reference for the sentence: "It is the same verb that Plutarch uses to describe a famous kiss that Alexander the Great gave Bagoas." I can't find it neither in Alexander the Greats page nor in Bagoas nor in Plutarchs. what was the kiss about what is the background? Please provide reference. 14:35, 21 October 2007‎ 83.77.238.61

See Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander", section 67, and the article Bagoas (courtier) here in the Wikipedia. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

can you explain where section 67 is? i only see 23 sections in Parallel Lives.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Have tagged this for a better source other than the original Plutarch entry. If someone other than the original poster has made this comparison, please so indicate (particularly since apparently two users have not been able to find it). Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions that need to be answered here

I've never seen an explanation for why Judas used a kiss -- as theologians and biblical historians are constantly ready to point out explanations about little cultural details in the bible, it surprised me that there is no explanation here. He could have just as easily simply pointed Jesus out to the authorities, but it is implied that there was a need to arrange some code. Why? For that matter, why did the authorities need someone to point him out? I assumed he was somewhat well-known in town by the time they got to this point. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they didnt have TV to watch the news and see his face. They would have known all about him but likely never seen him in person or any image of him save for oral discriptions. As for why a kiss rather then just simply point, go read the bible jesus was surrounded by his own men and they even get into a fight and some guy loses an ear before jesus says to stop, Judas wanted to betray him in a way that he could have plausible deniablity rather than outright openly pointing him out. 192.250.175.26 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These unsigned contributions have a simple explanation. The gnostic Apocalypses of James, First and Second, from the Nag Hammadi Codex contain the passage with the antagonist 'Judas' as protagonist "James". THERE WAS NO JUDAS. I doubt there was a Jesus, either, but that is a debate for another day. "Judas" is obviously James inverted in the canon. "The "flesh is weak", the kiss (inverted from a spirit transfer), "armed multitudes seizing [archons in NHC, Jesus in the canon]", "Hail, brother! [in Second Apocalypse of James, 'Master', Matt. 26:49]", "stripped and rising [spiritually, Second James, "fleeing", Mark 14:51-2] naked" are not mere coincidence. The gnostics wrote the original tradition of Mastership succession, and the proto-orthodox church tried (and succeeded) to hide him as "Judas", the scoundrel betrayer. It was all a con. No history to the canon whatsoever. James is attested historically (Hegesippus, Clement, Josephus, etc.) -- BUT NOT JESUS. Sahansdal (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References

de:Judas Kiss

is about the movie! --79.207.73.230 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed ! Could somebody clear up this confusion ? It has been half a year since 79.207.73.230 made this point. Other languages [i.e. projects] are also "affected". Hirpex (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This query appears to have been resolved. -BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

James delivering the kiss

The kiss "of Judas" in the Apocalypses of James

This is the most important revelation in the history of mankind. When read correctly, the "betrayal" of Jesus is really the succession of James the Just. In the Nag Hammadi Codex gnostic Apocalypses of James, both First and Second, the protagonist, James, kisses Jesus. Here it is obviously a symbolic transfer of spirit. In context, especially "the flesh is weak", "armed multitudes seizing [archons in NHC, Jesus in the canon]", "Hail, brother [James the Just in NHC, 'Master' in the canon]", and "stripped and rising naked [spiritually, Mark 14:51-2]", this is an orthodox reversal of a gnostic original tradition of Mastership succession. What this reveals is serial Mastership: the world is never without a living Master. Go to www.rssb.org and Science of the Soul.org for more information.Sahansdal (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Editor2020, User:Dougweller or anyone, can you take a look whether recent addition on gnostic gospels counts as sourced please. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not. Its source, Robert Wahler, is a "life-long follower of the teachings of a true mystic Master, Maharaj Charan Singh." which is fine but doesn't make him an expert on the subject, and his books are self-published. I think I've cleared him out of this and [{Gospel of Judas]]. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And why not? I'm merely quoting the sourced gnostic Gospels, which are obviously paralleled in the canon, in reverse theme. You want to understand this stuff, or don't you? Here: Go to the gnostic Apocalypse of Peter . Notice anything unusual at the end of paragraph one, last sentence? Yes, that's Jesus denying PETER, not the reverse, and "three times, in this night". You think it coincidence that three details are in evidence for this passage in reverse parallel to the canon??? Give me a better solution than that the proto-orthodox church was trying to demean Peter, a successor Master himself (to James) for the gnostics who wrote this. Jesus is telling Peter he isn't ready for inner vision of the Master. Go to the canonical "Betrayal" and see how many times Jesus in the Synoptics "comes to" the disciples in Gethsemane (hint: three times). It is not an 'arresting party' he is warning them of, but a heads up to "watch [and pray]" (meditate) "for an hour" (Matt. 26:40-41) or they may miss his "coming". No one prays "for an hour" in any text: gnostic, orthodox, or otherwise. Why would he want them to "watch" for arrest? He knows all. He knows (supposedly) that he must be arrested, so what are they "watching" for??? It's the same dynamic in John 18 with Malchus and the arrest there. The John 17:12 prophecy "that none should be lost" pertains to MALCHUS, not the arrest. Malchus having his right ear cut is mystic symbolism for initiation (see Hosea 6:1-6). The Greek conjunctions, "hina" and "oun" in John 18:9-10 prove it. They are subordinate and continuous conjunctions, "That" and "therefore", the second clause tied and following upon the first. Jesus isn't saving them from arrest! He is saving Malchus from perdition! Why would he care if they got arrested? He is saving them from hell, not prison. (Even the preposition in John 17:12 shows this: it is "nothing out from them" is lost (Greek "ex"), except the devil within them, not that one OF them is the devil!) Btw, Dr. Robert Eisenman ("James the Brother of Jesus") found the same minimizing of James in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and for the same reason. I'm in good company, my friends. Sahansdal (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References

BAZZAR!

Judas Iscariot. Betrayer and the only known "Gay thing" Iran. Ryansrobison (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)